Forwarded from 法庭文字直播台
#九龍城裁判法院第七庭
#嚴舜儀主任裁判官
#1027黃埔
#續審 [6/15]
傅,林,袁,* (非法集結 4項蒙面 管有攻擊性武器)
D1選擇作供，有兩名辯方證人。
D2-D4選擇不作供，不傳召辯方證人。
1510 D1開始作供。
#嚴舜儀主任裁判官
#1027黃埔
#續審 [6/15]
傅,林,袁,* (非法集結 4項蒙面 管有攻擊性武器)
D1選擇作供，有兩名辯方證人。
D2-D4選擇不作供，不傳召辯方證人。
1510 D1開始作供。
Forwarded from 法庭文字直播台
#九龍城裁判法院第七庭
#嚴舜儀主任裁判官
#1027黃埔
#續審 [6/15]
傅,林,袁,* (非法集結 4項蒙面 管有攻擊性武器)
D1作供主問完結，明天接受盤問。
主要解釋出現在現場的理由和背囊內物品的用途。
明天0930同庭續審。
#嚴舜儀主任裁判官
#1027黃埔
#續審 [6/15]
傅,林,袁,* (非法集結 4項蒙面 管有攻擊性武器)
D1作供主問完結，明天接受盤問。
主要解釋出現在現場的理由和背囊內物品的用途。
明天0930同庭續審。
Forwarded from 法庭文字直播台
#九龍城裁判法院第七庭
#嚴舜儀主任裁判官
#1027黃埔
#續審 [6/15]
傅,林,袁,* (非法集結 4項蒙面 管有攻擊性武器)
D1接受盤問。
就管有鎚仔的用途，嚴官要求D1即席做示範😮😮😮 (暫不透露詳情)。雖然失敗，D1向嚴官解釋原理，嚴官表示明白，但問控方是否接納說法，如不接納，要給機會D1回應。控方表示不接納。
休庭至1200。
#嚴舜儀主任裁判官
#1027黃埔
#續審 [6/15]
傅,林,袁,* (非法集結 4項蒙面 管有攻擊性武器)
D1接受盤問。
就管有鎚仔的用途，嚴官要求D1即席做示範😮😮😮 (暫不透露詳情)。雖然失敗，D1向嚴官解釋原理，嚴官表示明白，但問控方是否接納說法，如不接納，要給機會D1回應。控方表示不接納。
休庭至1200。
Forwarded from 法庭文字直播台
#九龍城裁判法院第七庭
#張天雁裁判官
#審訊 [1/1]
#1224旺角
劉(20)
承上：
https://t.me/youarenotalonehk_live/8925
控罪：
1)在公眾地方 #管有攻擊性武器 》❌不認罪❌
2)無牌 #管有無線電通訊器具 》早前已認罪
案情：
被控於 2019 年 12 月 24 日在旺角亞皆老街與康樂街交界的公眾地方管有攻擊性武器，即一個能發出雷射光束的裝置
審訊：
控辯雙方相議後，控罪一穫控方不提證供起訴，撒消控罪；控罪二罪款五千元。
#張天雁裁判官
#審訊 [1/1]
#1224旺角
劉(20)
承上：
https://t.me/youarenotalonehk_live/8925
控罪：
1)在公眾地方 #管有攻擊性武器 》❌不認罪❌
2)無牌 #管有無線電通訊器具 》早前已認罪
案情：
被控於 2019 年 12 月 24 日在旺角亞皆老街與康樂街交界的公眾地方管有攻擊性武器，即一個能發出雷射光束的裝置
審訊：
控辯雙方相議後，控罪一穫控方不提證供起訴，撒消控罪；控罪二罪款五千元。
Forwarded from 法庭文字直播台
#九龍城裁判法院第七庭
#張天雁裁判官
#1006石硤尾 #審訊［1/2］
#管有工具作非法用途
陳（19）
被告被控於2019年10月6日在九龍大埔道56號後巷管有可發出激光射線的儀器，意圖將其作任何非法用途使用。
被告不認罪。
是日傳召 PW1 及 PW2
控辯雙方均完成盤問。
為免審訊內容外流，本案詳情後補。
案件押後至明日0930 於同庭續審，期間被告以原有條件保釋。
#張天雁裁判官
#1006石硤尾 #審訊［1/2］
#管有工具作非法用途
陳（19）
被告被控於2019年10月6日在九龍大埔道56號後巷管有可發出激光射線的儀器，意圖將其作任何非法用途使用。
被告不認罪。
是日傳召 PW1 及 PW2
控辯雙方均完成盤問。
為免審訊內容外流，本案詳情後補。
案件押後至明日0930 於同庭續審，期間被告以原有條件保釋。
Forwarded from 法庭文字直播台
#九龍城裁判法院第七庭
#張天雁裁判官
#1006石硤尾 #續審［2/2］
#管有工具作非法用途
陳（19）
被告被控於2019年10月6日在九龍大埔道56號後巷管有可發出激光射線的儀器，意圖將其作任何非法用途使用。
PW3 PW4作供完畢，主要就證物處理方面作供。
休庭5分鐘，之後傳召PW5。
#張天雁裁判官
#1006石硤尾 #續審［2/2］
#管有工具作非法用途
陳（19）
被告被控於2019年10月6日在九龍大埔道56號後巷管有可發出激光射線的儀器，意圖將其作任何非法用途使用。
PW3 PW4作供完畢，主要就證物處理方面作供。
休庭5分鐘，之後傳召PW5。
Forwarded from 法庭文字直播台
#九龍城裁判法院第七庭
#張天雁裁判官
#1006石硤尾 #續審［2/2］
#管有工具作非法用途
陳（19）
被告被控於2019年10月6日在九龍大埔道56號後巷管有可發出激光射線的儀器，意圖將其作任何非法用途使用。
PW5作供完畢，控方案情完結。
押後至12月1日0930同庭續審，辯方需於11月27日或之前提交書面中段陳詞。
#張天雁裁判官
#1006石硤尾 #續審［2/2］
#管有工具作非法用途
陳（19）
被告被控於2019年10月6日在九龍大埔道56號後巷管有可發出激光射線的儀器，意圖將其作任何非法用途使用。
PW5作供完畢，控方案情完結。
押後至12月1日0930同庭續審，辯方需於11月27日或之前提交書面中段陳詞。
Forwarded from 法庭文字直播台
#九龍城裁判法院第七庭
#張天雁裁判官
#裁決 中文版本
#攻擊性武器
#1020深水埗
👤康(22)
控罪：在公眾地方管有攻擊性武器
- ENGLISH VERSION BELOW -
（本案以英文進行審訊，本直播附上英文判詞，有出錯請見諒🙇♂️）
簡短裁決判詞如下：
📌背景
被告被控於2019年10月20日在深水埗荔枝角道與白楊街交界附近的公眾地方，沒有合法權限或合理辯解而攜有一支長150厘米的長棒(竹枝），違反了香港法例第245章第33條。
控方依靠PW1 PC13714，即制止被告的警察，以及PW2 PC13618 ，亦是制服了被告的警察，以及視頻剪輯來進行起訴。
案發時，一輛警車在荔枝角道停下，隨後一些警察部隊迅速下車到達白楊街。被告被PW1攔下，當時他手持竹棍，當場被捕。
本案爭議點在於被告身上發現的竹枝，是否對他人意圖造成傷害。
📌PW1證供
裁判官認為，PW1的證詞與影片不符。催淚彈射擊後，能見度很低，而PW1則說，他轉向白楊街後在霧中截停了被告。PW1表示在其他警官到達之前看守着被告，待其他警員到達後PW1 便消失了，PW1在法庭上聲稱，他已向被告宣布他被捕，但裁判官認為在這短時間內發生這件事是不可能的。
此外，PW1告訴他發現被告時的時間有前後矛盾，起初他聲稱自己在距離被告20米左右的距離看到了他，後來他聲稱在他即將轉至荔枝角道路時看到了被告。
裁判官認為PW1當日有機會只是看到其他人與被告穿著相似的衣服，並認為PW1沒有將事實之全部告訴法庭，因此不會接納PW1 的證供。
裁判官因而需要依靠所呈堂的視頻進行判斷，她看到被告只是在由荔枝角道轉入白楊街的拐角處被警察制服。 被告人當時未有逃跑，被告被捕時竹枝位於被告的上半身，後來被PW2扔到一邊。
📌被告證供
被告證供的與錄像一致。
於庭上被告聲稱他住在附近，並當了教師十個月，而犯案現場亦接近他的工作地點。
他聲稱自己只在被截停前不久，才撿起了竹棍。 他正在與身處英國的朋友打視像電話，英國很少有棚架竹枝，因此他的朋友對竹枝很感興趣。他承認得知那天深水埗有示威活動，但他認為他離現場不那麼近。他當時認為他的行動並不太危險。
被告被截停時，他的耳機仍掛在他的耳朵上（在影片中可以看到），因此他對警察的敏感程度較低是合理的。PW1亦同意他在逮捕被告時有拿取被告的電話。
當日荔枝角道上有示威者，然而未有證據證明他們停留的時間長。當警車駛近路口時，由於沒有警笛聲，而警察在很短的時間內便下了車並逮捕了人群，被告當時可能因為戴著耳機，因此可能未有意識到警方在附近。此外，竹棍沒有刻意被磨尖，可見管有其目的並非刻意傷人。
📌裁決
被告沒有任何刑事定罪記錄，因此法庭會信納他的作供有較高的可信性，而說謊的可能性較低。裁判官同意被告的行為可疑，但法院需要考慮到對被告的行為存在合理懷疑。法庭無法確定被告管有竹棍的目的是造成傷害。
被告因而罪名不成立，當庭䆁放。
#張天雁裁判官
#裁決 中文版本
#攻擊性武器
#1020深水埗
👤康(22)
控罪：在公眾地方管有攻擊性武器
- ENGLISH VERSION BELOW -
（本案以英文進行審訊，本直播附上英文判詞，有出錯請見諒🙇♂️）
簡短裁決判詞如下：
📌背景
被告被控於2019年10月20日在深水埗荔枝角道與白楊街交界附近的公眾地方，沒有合法權限或合理辯解而攜有一支長150厘米的長棒(竹枝），違反了香港法例第245章第33條。
控方依靠PW1 PC13714，即制止被告的警察，以及PW2 PC13618 ，亦是制服了被告的警察，以及視頻剪輯來進行起訴。
案發時，一輛警車在荔枝角道停下，隨後一些警察部隊迅速下車到達白楊街。被告被PW1攔下，當時他手持竹棍，當場被捕。
本案爭議點在於被告身上發現的竹枝，是否對他人意圖造成傷害。
📌PW1證供
裁判官認為，PW1的證詞與影片不符。催淚彈射擊後，能見度很低，而PW1則說，他轉向白楊街後在霧中截停了被告。PW1表示在其他警官到達之前看守着被告，待其他警員到達後PW1 便消失了，PW1在法庭上聲稱，他已向被告宣布他被捕，但裁判官認為在這短時間內發生這件事是不可能的。
此外，PW1告訴他發現被告時的時間有前後矛盾，起初他聲稱自己在距離被告20米左右的距離看到了他，後來他聲稱在他即將轉至荔枝角道路時看到了被告。
裁判官認為PW1當日有機會只是看到其他人與被告穿著相似的衣服，並認為PW1沒有將事實之全部告訴法庭，因此不會接納PW1 的證供。
裁判官因而需要依靠所呈堂的視頻進行判斷，她看到被告只是在由荔枝角道轉入白楊街的拐角處被警察制服。 被告人當時未有逃跑，被告被捕時竹枝位於被告的上半身，後來被PW2扔到一邊。
📌被告證供
被告證供的與錄像一致。
於庭上被告聲稱他住在附近，並當了教師十個月，而犯案現場亦接近他的工作地點。
他聲稱自己只在被截停前不久，才撿起了竹棍。 他正在與身處英國的朋友打視像電話，英國很少有棚架竹枝，因此他的朋友對竹枝很感興趣。他承認得知那天深水埗有示威活動，但他認為他離現場不那麼近。他當時認為他的行動並不太危險。
被告被截停時，他的耳機仍掛在他的耳朵上（在影片中可以看到），因此他對警察的敏感程度較低是合理的。PW1亦同意他在逮捕被告時有拿取被告的電話。
當日荔枝角道上有示威者，然而未有證據證明他們停留的時間長。當警車駛近路口時，由於沒有警笛聲，而警察在很短的時間內便下了車並逮捕了人群，被告當時可能因為戴著耳機，因此可能未有意識到警方在附近。此外，竹棍沒有刻意被磨尖，可見管有其目的並非刻意傷人。
📌裁決
被告沒有任何刑事定罪記錄，因此法庭會信納他的作供有較高的可信性，而說謊的可能性較低。裁判官同意被告的行為可疑，但法院需要考慮到對被告的行為存在合理懷疑。法庭無法確定被告管有竹棍的目的是造成傷害。
被告因而罪名不成立，當庭䆁放。
Forwarded from 法庭文字直播台
#九龍城裁判法院第七庭
#張天雁裁判官 #裁決
#攻擊性武器 #1020深水埗
- ENGLISH VERSION -
Mr Clarke (22)
Here are the Verdict and Reasons for the case.
📌Background
The defendant is charged with possession of offensive weapons ( a bamboo stick) in a public place (intersection between Lai Chi Kok Road and Poplar Street), violating Section 33 of Cap 245.
In this case, the Prosecution relied on PW1, PC13714, the police officer who first stopped the defendant, and PW2, PC13618, the police officer who subdued the defendant, and the video clips, to make the Prosecution.
At the time the incident happened, a police vehicle stopped by Lai Chi Kok road, then some units of police force got off swiftly and got to Poplar Street. PW1 then stopped the defendant, and he was holding a bamboo stick at the time.
The dispute is whether the bamboo stick found on the defendant is intended to cause any injuries to other people.
📌PW1's Testimony
In the view of the Magistrate, the testimony by PW1 did not go in line with the video shown. The visibility was pretty low after the police shot the teargas. PW1 said that he turned to Poplar Street and stopped the defendant in a mist.
PW1 was seen holding the defendant behind briefly before other police officer arrived. PW1 then disappeared after other's arrival.
PW1 strongly claimed in the Court that he announced to the defendant that he was arrested, but the Magistrate believed that this is quite impossible, as shown in the video clips.
Also, PW1 told different versions of the time when he spotted the defendant, at first he claimed that he saw him from about 20 meters, then he claimed that he saw him when he was about to turn to Lai Chi Kok road.
Therefore, the Magistrate judged that PW1 is not telling the whole truth to the Court, PW1 may have seen someone else who wore similar clothing with the defendant, and so she would not accept the testimony given by PW1.
The Magistrate then needed to rely on the videos provided, in which she saw the video herself, and she saw that the defendant was seen just turning around the corner and subdued by the police officer. The defendant was not running or doing anything. When the defendant was arrested, the bamboo stick is placed on the upper body of the defendant. The bamboo stick was later thrown aside by PW2.
📌Defendant's Testimony
The testimony of the defendant was consistent with the video. The defendant claimed that he lived nearby and works as a teacher for ten months. The crime scene is close to his working place. He claimed that he picked up the bamboo stick shortly before he was stopped. He was having a call with his friends from the UK, who are interested in the bamboo stick, as it is rare in the UK. He acknowledged that there were protests in Sham Shui Po that day, but he thought that he was not that close to the scene. He considered it not dangerous at that time.
When the defendant was intercepted, his earphone was still on hanging on his ears, which was seen on the video, and so it was reasonable that he was less sensitive with police. It is noticed that PW1 agreed that he had taken the phone of the defendant when he arrested the defendant.
There is no dispute that there were protestors on Lai Chi Kok road that day, but there was no evidence of the length that they stay. There was no siren sound when the police car is approaching the junction. The police officer got off the car and arrested the crowd in a very short period. Therefore it is possible that the defendant was not aware at the time, as he was wearing earphone at the time.
Besides, the bamboo stick was not sharpened, and so it was not held to cause injury.
📌Verdict
The defendant has a clear record, and so he was regarded as a lower possibility of making lies and higher credibility. The Magistrate agreed that the action of defendant is suspicious, but the Court need to consider that there is reasonable doubt for the actions of the defendant. The Court cannot be sure that the defendant kept the bamboo stick to cause injury.
The defendant is acquitted.
#張天雁裁判官 #裁決
#攻擊性武器 #1020深水埗
- ENGLISH VERSION -
Mr Clarke (22)
Here are the Verdict and Reasons for the case.
📌Background
The defendant is charged with possession of offensive weapons ( a bamboo stick) in a public place (intersection between Lai Chi Kok Road and Poplar Street), violating Section 33 of Cap 245.
In this case, the Prosecution relied on PW1, PC13714, the police officer who first stopped the defendant, and PW2, PC13618, the police officer who subdued the defendant, and the video clips, to make the Prosecution.
At the time the incident happened, a police vehicle stopped by Lai Chi Kok road, then some units of police force got off swiftly and got to Poplar Street. PW1 then stopped the defendant, and he was holding a bamboo stick at the time.
The dispute is whether the bamboo stick found on the defendant is intended to cause any injuries to other people.
📌PW1's Testimony
In the view of the Magistrate, the testimony by PW1 did not go in line with the video shown. The visibility was pretty low after the police shot the teargas. PW1 said that he turned to Poplar Street and stopped the defendant in a mist.
PW1 was seen holding the defendant behind briefly before other police officer arrived. PW1 then disappeared after other's arrival.
PW1 strongly claimed in the Court that he announced to the defendant that he was arrested, but the Magistrate believed that this is quite impossible, as shown in the video clips.
Also, PW1 told different versions of the time when he spotted the defendant, at first he claimed that he saw him from about 20 meters, then he claimed that he saw him when he was about to turn to Lai Chi Kok road.
Therefore, the Magistrate judged that PW1 is not telling the whole truth to the Court, PW1 may have seen someone else who wore similar clothing with the defendant, and so she would not accept the testimony given by PW1.
The Magistrate then needed to rely on the videos provided, in which she saw the video herself, and she saw that the defendant was seen just turning around the corner and subdued by the police officer. The defendant was not running or doing anything. When the defendant was arrested, the bamboo stick is placed on the upper body of the defendant. The bamboo stick was later thrown aside by PW2.
📌Defendant's Testimony
The testimony of the defendant was consistent with the video. The defendant claimed that he lived nearby and works as a teacher for ten months. The crime scene is close to his working place. He claimed that he picked up the bamboo stick shortly before he was stopped. He was having a call with his friends from the UK, who are interested in the bamboo stick, as it is rare in the UK. He acknowledged that there were protests in Sham Shui Po that day, but he thought that he was not that close to the scene. He considered it not dangerous at that time.
When the defendant was intercepted, his earphone was still on hanging on his ears, which was seen on the video, and so it was reasonable that he was less sensitive with police. It is noticed that PW1 agreed that he had taken the phone of the defendant when he arrested the defendant.
There is no dispute that there were protestors on Lai Chi Kok road that day, but there was no evidence of the length that they stay. There was no siren sound when the police car is approaching the junction. The police officer got off the car and arrested the crowd in a very short period. Therefore it is possible that the defendant was not aware at the time, as he was wearing earphone at the time.
Besides, the bamboo stick was not sharpened, and so it was not held to cause injury.
📌Verdict
The defendant has a clear record, and so he was regarded as a lower possibility of making lies and higher credibility. The Magistrate agreed that the action of defendant is suspicious, but the Court need to consider that there is reasonable doubt for the actions of the defendant. The Court cannot be sure that the defendant kept the bamboo stick to cause injury.
The defendant is acquitted.
Forwarded from 法庭文字直播台
#九龍城裁判法院第七庭
#張天雁裁判官
#1006石硤尾 #續審［3/2］
#管有工具作非法用途
陳（19）
被告被控於2019年10月6日在九龍大埔道56號後巷管有可發出激光射線的儀器，意圖將其作任何非法用途使用。
今處理中段陳詞
即將開庭
旁聽席仍有大量坐位
#張天雁裁判官
#1006石硤尾 #續審［3/2］
#管有工具作非法用途
陳（19）
被告被控於2019年10月6日在九龍大埔道56號後巷管有可發出激光射線的儀器，意圖將其作任何非法用途使用。
今處理中段陳詞
即將開庭
旁聽席仍有大量坐位